A highly predictable debate between the worst US bipartisan couple for decades

Tonight's
first US presidential debate involves two candidates who actually
depict emphatically the high degree of the US politics degeneration:
deeply pro-establishment, war-thirsty Hillary Clinton, against the
reserve of the establishment,
racist billionaire Donald Trump.

No matter
how they act, no matter what they say and what rhetoric they use,
they can both be identified, more or less, by the few characteristics
above. It would be rather pointless for someone to expect anything
better from both.

As we
approach the day of the US elections, time is running out and the two
candidates will naturally focus on one thing: fix their picture to
attract more voters and increase their chances to win. As polls show
that it will be a tight race, the two will try to attract as many
voters as possible from the huge tank of undecided US citizens.

Hillary took
a good taste from the fight for the Democratic nomination against
Bernie Sanders. She will probably try to retain a more progressive
profile which was forced to exhibit during the race against Bernie,
in order to gain voters from the tank of the mass movement he
created. She knows that these voters, and especially the American
youth, had enough of the neoliberal establishment in previous years,
and therefore, it would be very hard to be persuaded that the
warmongering Hillary has been "relocated" further to the
Left. There is no need to expose her absolute commitment to conduct
more dirty wars because the US deep state and the neocons know very
well that she will focus on this policy, in case that she will be the
next US president. Furthermore, it seems that she does not expect
anything from the most conservative voters to the Right, who are
clearly determined to support Trump.

Trump has
also a difficult job. He has to find a balance between the highly
conservative audience, which is the core of his voters, and the more
moderate, undecided ones, who may determine the outcome of the
elections. Therefore, he is expected to smooth his extremely
patriotic (to the point that becomes racist) rhetoric, in order to
become "more presidential",
as actually warned recently by the establishment. He knows that he
can't win without taking a crucial percentage of the more moderate
tank.

It appears
that after Sanders, the US voters are left with zero options, again.
Yet, they do have options which the corporate media don't want to
become known. For example, Jill Stein is a good alternative to the US
bipartisan establishment. She showed in various appearances in the
alternative media that the politics of the Greens can make a real
difference and break the ruthless neoliberal establishment that is
represented by the US bipartisanism.

It's time
for the alternative media to show their rising power against the
traditional, corrupted media. They could organize a non-rigged debate with the candidates of the third
parties. The momentum of millions of disappointed US citizens, who
have chosen to stay out of the political process for years, may then
show up, sending shock waves to the establishment. These can make the
difference and beat the bipartisanism in the oncoming elections
through a political earthquake that would create an unprecedented
moment in the US history.